<quoted text>On their part, yes it is, their ignorance and bigotry has doomed your obsession for the next couple of decades at least. Not because I say so, it is the simple truthIt doesnt matter what I think of it, or you, you can rant and scream like a little kid all day long, it wont change a thing.However I am willing to make you a wager,( never give a sucker an even break) that nothing will come of it legally for the next couple of decades.Not because I say so, just an observationSSM will happen and is happening whether you like it or not, and regardless of feeble comparisons you try to make.

So in the case of polygamy, your bigotry and ignorance is justified? Is that what you're trying to tell us?

You can scream and obsess and kick your feet but the case for polygamy is the same as the case for same sex marriage.

Polygamy may be legal in the future regardless of your feeble attempts to censor it away.

A Southland U.S. postal worker was on unpaid leave Feburary 05, 2013 Tuesday after assaulting an 11-year-old girl.

Several witness have placed the postal worker with is hands around young girls neck.

play

Postal worker placed on leave after alleged assaultClaudia Peschiutta

00:00

Download

Villasenor, 55, of Temple City, was allegedly involved in a choking incident on Monday afternoon at a bathroom at Bristow Park in the city of Commerce, according to Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.

When deputies from the East Los Angeles Sheriffs Station arrived, the young girl told deputies that a postal worker had choked her with his hands for laughing at him when he tried to use the restroom facilities and inadvertently entered the womens restroom.

U.S. Postal Service spokesman Richard Maher told Peschiutta the veteran letter carrier was on duty when he allegedly went after the girl.

We have taken him off duty and placed him in a non-pay status while the incident is being investigated, said Maher.

Villasenor has worked for the Postal Service since 1981.

KCAL9&#8242;s Suraya Fadel reports there was no response when she knocked at the door of Villasenors Temple City residence even though it was clear there were people inside the home.

Villasenor is being held at the East Los Angeles Sheriffs Station. His bail has been set at $100,000.

The investigation is being handled by the Sheriffs Departments Special Victims Bureau.

<quoted text>So in the case of polygamy, your bigotry and ignorance is justified? Is that what you're trying to tell us?You can scream and obsess and kick your feet but the case for polygamy is the same as the case for same sex marriage.Polygamy may be legal in the future regardless of your feeble attempts to censor it away.

Again you are confusing what I might think ( which doesnt matter ) with the reality that nothing will come of it for the next couple of decades.

It isnt an opinion, that is the part you and y9our little buddy Frankie dont understand.

it doesnt matter what I might think, the fact is, nothing is about to change with relation to that, far too many fundamentalist religions have made an indelible mark in the mind of most of the US population ( I didnt say me ), specifically voters.

I am willing to make the wager, but Frankie is too smart to take me up on it because he knows I am right.

<quoted text>No. I am not arguing that it won't be a decade or two away. So what? Why do you keep stressing that?Your arguments regarding polygamy seem to be:-I don't care.-Polygamists are bad people.-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.Did I miss any?

lets see

-I don't care.... true-Polygamists are bad people.... not all, but far too many are.-Same sex marriage is here now, polygamy is not.... true-Frankie's obsessed with polygamy.... very very true

I never thought gay marriage would ever be comparable to polygamy. But as the battle for same-sex marriage rages on, I have started to wonder  if consenting adults of the same sex can and should legally be able to marry, then why cant a consenting, legal adult marry two or more people?

A recent dispute regarding polygamy began more than a year ago when the Brown family, better known as the cast of the reality TV show Sister Wives, was investigated on charges of polygamy.

Soon after the investigation commenced, the family sued the state of Utah, saying the investigation held against it was unconstitutional because it was an invasion of its privacy and religious beliefs, according to blog posts by the familys attorney Jonathan Turley, who is a constitutional law professor at George Washington University.

Legally, the Browns are not breaking any laws. According to various news sources, the husband, Kody Brown, had only one marriage certificate with his wife, Meri. The other three women are sister wives, hence the title of the show  they are not civilly married to Kody Brown.

When I first read this story, I thought it was absurd. Why would a person even try to sue the state for banning polygamy?

However, much to my  and many other peoples  dismay, the judge has ruled in the Browns favor thus far and is going to allow them to present their argument to the court.

The judge denied a second attempt by the government to dismiss the case, according to a blog post Aug. 17 by Turley. He remains optimistic about the case.

Regardless of the outcome on the summary judgment motions now scheduled by the court, both the Brown family and the people of Utah can now expect a ruling on the power of the state to criminalize private relations among consenting adults, Turley wrote in the blog.

Although they still have a long way to go, the Sister Wives stars stand for more than polygamous living. They now make a stronger argument that the right of marriage should be given to all people, not just one man and one woman. In May, the family publicly stated that it represents this idea. In a Fox News interview, the family also announced it supports same-sex marriage.

The Sister Wives show has not only turned the five main characters into well-known celebrities, but has made polygamy a hot topic across the state and endeared many supporters to the Browns.

The Browns present a strong argument that what they do in their home is their business. And the more they argue for privacy and rights to marry whomever they choose, the more it morphs into a parallel argument in favor of same-sex marriage. In fact, if Turley is right when he says that, in this marriage debate, we are truly concerned with liberty and protections for private relations among consenting adults, then the number should not matter any more than sex.

This isnt to say that I agree with polygamous lifestyles, but I find it hard to argue that a marriage between a man and a man should not be allowed when two women in a consenting relationship with one man are permitted to have the same marriage rights.

<quoted text>We understand you firmly believe that, but there is no argument that marriage is deemed a basic civil and human right in our country.When you wish to prevent a group from exercising a civil right, you must prove without a shadow of a doubt that their exercise of that right will harm themselves, others, and\or society.There ARE no other arguments that are valid in these cases. Religious disapproval doesn't matter. Whether that group is liked or trusted doesn't matter.We live in a free country, and sometimes that's messy. There will be people legally doing things that WE would never choose to do, and our disapproval alone is not a reason to changes laws to restrict other people's behavior.There needs to be a concrete reason to do so.And try as you might, you really can't find one here, and you know it. If you could, you wouldn't be grasping at straws.

"Must prove harm"???

Who says that is the litmus test?

You just walked by selectively adding one group to another group for no reason while denying it to a host of other groups.

The first litmus test is this;

Why should we newly equate one group out of numerous to a historic cultural group?

That requires the identification of what distinguishes the first group (marriage), and then equating or not other groups to it.

Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay couples are clearly a blunder of the the fundamental goal of evolution.

There needs to be a concrete reason to do so. And try as you might, you really can't find one here, and you know it. If you could, you wouldn't be grasping at straws.

<quoted text>It isnt an opinion, that is the part you and y9our little buddy Frankie dont understand.it doesnt matter what I might think, the fact is, nothing is about to change with relation to that, far too many fundamentalist religions have made an indelible mark in the mind of most of the US population ( I didnt say me ), specifically voters.I am willing to make the wager, but Frankie is too smart to take me up on it because he knows I am right.You are a different story, you are too stupid to know the difference

I nave never made an argument that poly will be legal soon and you know it.

<quoted text>Yeah, you have to prove that it does someone harm, that is why Prop 8 was overturned and that decision upheld by the California appellate courts.You cant just deny people the right to happiness just because you dont like them. You arent royalty, you dont get to just decide on a whim who is protected under the law and who is not.You have to show how it harms others, your lawyers have already failed in that task twice, and now at the supreme court no new evidence can be presented, only failed evidence already presented.You are on the wrong side of history.

Same with polygamy. How would a marriage of three women harm you? How would a marriage of two men and one woman harm you? How would a marriage of three women and a man harm you?

<quoted text>It isnt an opinion, that is the part you and y9our little buddy Frankie dont understand.it doesnt matter what I might think, the fact is, nothing is about to change with relation to that, far too many fundamentalist religions have made an indelible mark in the mind of most of the US population ( I didnt say me ), specifically voters.I am willing to make the wager, but Frankie is too smart to take me up on it because he knows I am right.You are a different story, you are too stupid to know the difference

Your repeated insistence that polygamy won't be legal soon because some polygamists are bad is ignorant and bigoted. It's like saying blacks should not have civil rights because some of them are bad.

Your repeated insistence that polygamy is far off deserves a "so what?" What is your point with that schtick? I'm not arguing otherwise.

Your labeling my points on marriage equality an "obsession" is dishonest. Your thinly veiled implications that I am against same sex marriage is more of your dishonesty.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.